Also, I don't remember their specific positions on letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, but "Dem." Senators Nelson, Baucus and Lieberman were rotten on other liberal healthcare aims like the public option and definitely single payer. So, whichever one of you is correct even 60 would have never meant 60.

Also, I don't remember their specific positions on letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, but "Dem." Senators Nelson, Baucus and Lieberman were rotten on other liberal healthcare aims like the public option and definitely single payer. So, whichever one of you is correct even 60 would have never meant 60.

Filibuster hasn't done much to stop trump and the repugs. Obama just quit trying to sell the public on anything after the election. It was amazing to watch loser Palin keep beating him up over imaginary Death Panels.

George Carlin said “The owners know the truth. It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

... On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote). The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.

On January 19, 2010, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate in a special election to replace Kennedy, having campaigned on giving the Republican minority the 41st vote needed to sustain Republican filibusters....

rstrong's link is "Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority", but I think you're correct that there was a theoretical (Nelson, Baucus and Lieberman ) supermajority for about four months. "Kirk was appointed as Senator Kennedy's temporary replacement on September 24."

They've changed the rules such that filibusters can't be used as often. Strangely, it only takes a simple majority to do that. The GOP has decided that raw power now is worth the risk of getting a taste of their own medicine when the Dems have the Senate and WH again.

They've changed the rules such that filibusters can't be used as often. Strangely, it only takes a simple majority to do that. The GOP has decided that raw power now is worth the risk of getting a taste of their own medicine when the Dems have the Senate and WH again.

So, what's the plan for 2020, elect another wall street tax cutter for the rich who can't even find time to go to the American public with something to stop our insane wealth giveaway to the drug companies, or will we use our majority in 2018 to change the rules back so the repugs can filibuster?

George Carlin said “The owners know the truth. It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

So, what's the plan for 2020, elect another wall street tax cutter for the rich who can't even find time to go to the American public with something to stop our insane wealth giveaway to the drug companies,

There's a pretty good chance that will describe the candidates from both parties.

or will we use our majority in 2018 to change the rules back so the repugs can filibuster?

Doesn't really matter since the GOP will still have the WH veto. However, the Dem filibuster rules will matter in 2021 if it then holds both the WH and Senate.

rstrong's link is "Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority", but I think you're correct that there was a theoretical (Nelson, Baucus and Lieberman ) supermajority for about four months.

Theoretical in the same sense Republicans were theoretically bipartisan and would never abuse the filibuster. There's a reason - actually several- that Joe Lieberman is known as the junior senator from Aetna.

Theoretical in the same sense Republicans were theoretically bipartisan and would never abuse the filibuster. There's a reason - actually several- that Joe Lieberman is known as the junior senator from Aetna.

Or, you could say that the key problem that no one has tried to push SP during the Obama administration when he was so busy trying to please repugs and didn't have time to push the only program that made sense.

George Carlin said “The owners know the truth. It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

Or, you could say that the key problem that no one has tried to push SP during the Obama administration when he was so busy trying to please repugs and didn't have time to push the only program that made sense.

The senators from Aetna wouldn't even allow testimony on single payer. I regret that Obama didn't push harder on the public option, but I don't think there was ever hope for single payer.

It's only once it was obvious that he'd never have the votes for single-payer that he adopted 15 years of Republican policy as the ACA. It was better than nothing, and even the Republicans wouldn't be hypocritical and dishonest enough to oppose it.

... Mission said this week its board of directors voted unanimously to execute a letter of intent to be acquired by HCA, a for-profit health company with 177 hospitals and 240,000 employees across 20 states and the United Kingdom. If the deal meets acceptable terms and receives regulatory approval, it would be HCA's first entry into North Carolina....

This is a betrayal of Asheville and all of the nonprofit hospitals that were absorbed by Mission Health and their communities.

"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."

George Carlin said “The owners know the truth. It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."

Read something more from this piece of shit

about this same Goldman Sachs sustainable business model,

“In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients. …”